Southern slavery in its present aspects : containing a reply to a late work of the Bishop of Vermont on slavery.

Front matter

IN ITS

PRESENT ASPECTS

CONTAININQ

CHAPTER I. THE "protest" and ITS DEPENOE

Protest of the Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Pennsylvania against Bishop Sbpkins's Letter on African Slavery.

ON the 15th day of April, 1863, certain gentieiaeu of Philadelphia, Messrs. George M. Whartonj A. Browning, John Stockton Littell, Samuel Jackson, M.D., Charles J. Biddle and Peter McCall, addressed a note to the Eight Eev. John Henry Hopkins, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of Yermont, requesting him to favor them with his " views on the Scriptural aspect of Slavery."

" We believe," they said, " that false teachings on this subject have had a great deal to do with bringing on the unhappy strife between two sections of our common country, and that a lamentable degree of ignorance prevails in regard to it ;" and they concluded by expressing the belief, " that the communication of his views as a Christian Bishop on the Scriptural aspect of Slavery, may contribute" to the formation of a " sound public opinion on this topic." On the 2d day of May, 1863, Bishop Hopkins to-

.8

SOUTHERN SLAVERY.

plied to this note by saying, that in January, 1861, he had published a pamphlet on the subject referred to, which was at their service; that the views then and there set forth were not only unchanged, but that the numerous replies had "strengthened his conviction as to the sanction which the Scriptures give to the principle of Negro Slavery, so long as it is administered in accordance with the precepts laid down by the Apostles," and that " such was the universal doctrine of Christian ministers, Christian lawyers and Christian statesmen one hundred years ago, with a few exceptions."

" With this brief introduction," the Bishop said, " I proceed to the very serious question which your friendly application has submitted for discussion" — thus endorsing and re-issuing the original document.

In the letter in which Bishop Hojpkins discusses this question of Negro Slavery, he maintains that the Holy Scriptures established the principle of perpetual bondage, " servitude for life descending to the offsjpring."

He also asserts that the truths which lie at the foundation of the Declaration of Independence, " that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," are "no truths at all," that these rights are only " imaginary," that he " utterly discards" them, and " doubts whether the annals of civilized mankind can furnish a stronger instance of unmitigated perversity" than that of " our orators, our preachers, and our politicians" in their appeals to this famous document to justify the doctrine of universal liberty.

The Bishop also justifies the " presumed cruelty" of the system of Slavery by the facts that " Northern law allows the same in the case of children ami ap- ;^rentice8," and that the " Saviour himself used a scourge of small cords when he drove the moneychangers from the temple." " Are our modern philanthropists," he asks, " more merciful than Christ and wiser than the Almighty ?"

The separation of husband and wife, of parents and children, he extenuates by the fact that the laboring man places his children out to service and as apprentices, that many leave " their homes to seek their fortunes in the gold regions," and that " many in Europe have abandoned their families for Australia, or the United States, or the Oanadas."

The conclusion which the Bishop arrives at is this : " The Slavery of the JSTegro Eace as maintained in the Southern States appears to me fully authorized both in the Old and New Testament." — " That very slavery, in my humble judgment, has raised the negro incomparably higher in the scale of humanHy, and seems in fact to be the only instrumentality through which the heathen posterity of Ham have been raised at all."

Such are some of the views of Bishop Hopkins on the subject of African Slavery, as set forth in his letter to these gentlemen of Philadelphia — but the document itself should be read to appreciate its character. This letter was scattered broadcast over the State of Pennsylvania. As coming from a Bishop who is widely known throughout the Diocese, the Bishop and Clergy of. Pennsylvania felt constrained to enter against it the following Protest :

SOUTHERN SLAVERY.

The subscribers deeply regret that the fact of the extensive circulation throughout this Diocese of a letter by " John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Yermont," in defence of Southern Slavery, compels them to make this public protest. It is not their province to mix in any political canvass. But as ministers of Christ, in the Protestant Episcopal Church, it becomes them to deny any complicity or sympathy with such a defence.

This attempt not only to apologize for slavery in the abstract, but to advocate it as it exists in the cotton States, and in States which sell men and women in the open market as their staple product, is, in their judgment, unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ. As an effort to sustain, on Bible principles, the States in rebellion against the government, in the wicked attempt to establish by force of arms a tyranny under the name of a Eepublic, whose " corner-stone" shall be the perpetual bondage of the African, it challenges their indignant reprobation?

Philadelphia, September, 1S63.

John Eodney, Benjamin Dorr,

E. A. Washburne, Jehu C. Clay,

H. "W. Ducachet, D. E. Goodwin,

John S. Stone, M. A. De"W. Howe,

George Leeds, Henry S. Spackman,

Eichard D. Hall, James May,

Joseph D. Newlin, John A. Childs,

B. Wistar Morris, Thomas 0. Yarn all,

Daniel S. Miller, Edward Loundsbery,

THE "PROTEST," AND ITS DEFENCE.

Phillips Brooks, Addison B. Atkins, Herman Hooker, Benjamin "Watson, Edward L. Lycett, Lewis "W. Gibson, E. W. Oliver, Henry Brown, W. E. Stockton, Edward A. Foggo, J. Isador Mombert, Joel Eudderow, Archibald Beatty, C. A. li. Eiehards, George A. Strong, Gustavus M. Murray, George W. Shinn, Samuel Hall, George G. Field, Eeese C. Evans, Eobert G. Chase, Samuel Hazlehurst, Edwin N. Lightner, David 0. Page, John Oromlish, "William Preston, George Slattery, Francis J. Clerc, Eobert J. Parvin, Eichard Newton,

H. J. Morton, Jacob M. Douglass, E. A. Garden,

D. Otis Kellogg, Daniel Washburn, Samuel E. Smith, Treadwell Walden, Herman L. Duhring, Charles M. Dupuy, John H. Babcock, Anson B. Hard, George A. Latimer,

E. Heber Newton, John C. Furey, Charles A. Maison, Charles W. Quick, H. T. Wells,

D. 0. Millett, J. W. Leadenham, Frederick W. Beasley, John P. Lundy,

SOUTHERN SLAVERY.

E. C. Matlack, L. Ward Smith, Samuel. E. Appleton, "William J. Alston, J ohn Adams Jerome, Joseph A. Stone, Albra Wadleigh, W. S. Perkins, Francis E. Arnold, George H. Jenks, William S. Heaton, Eobert B. Peet, John Eeynolds, William Hilton, Washington B. Erben, John Ireland^ Benjamin J.Douglass,

D. 0. James,

E. K Potter,

W. H. D. Hatton, Thomas W. Martin, Alfred Elwyn, ' James W. Eobins, George Bringhurst, Charles W. Duane, George B. AUinson, Joseph Mulford, James DeW. Perry, Thomas G. Clemson, Erancis D. Hoskins, William P. Lewis, J. L. Heysinger, John Long, Ormes B. Keith, WiUiam Piehl,

George A. Grooke, Eichardson Graham, E. S. Watson, Samuel Edwards, George A. Burborow, Joseph E. Moore, Thomas B. Barker, S. Tweedale, Marcus A. Tolman, John H. Drumm, S. ITewton Spear, Louis 0. Newman, Edward 0. Jones, E. W. Hening, Samuel Durborow, C. 0. Parker, Henry Purdon, Benjamin H. Abbott, John H. Marsden, Samuel B. Dalrymple, William Y. Eeltwell, John Leithead, George 0. Drake, Peter Eussell, Eoberts Paul, George Kirke, Henry B.. Bartow, John K. Murphy, J. P. Ohl, John Tetlow, J. 0. Laverty, Charles Higbee, William Wright, S. T. Lord.

Charles E. Hall.

THE "paOTEST," AND ITS DEFENCE. 13

Such is the much-abused Protest of the Clergy of Pennsylvania against the pro-slavery letter of the Bishop of Vermont. The gentlemen who asked for the letter are not obscure men in Church or State, but prominent politicians of notorious partizan affiniticH. The letter itself began to be circulated in Pennsylvania (so far as I have been able to ascertain) in the month of August, 1863, just on the eve of a sharply-contested political campaign. Under these circumstances the Protest was issued. It called forth a retort from Bishop Hopkins, followed by a book entitled "A View of Slavery," containing an elaborate defence of the institution, " Scriptural, Ecclesiastical and Historical." To this book and the letter I propose, in the sequel, to make a brief reply. But first of all the Protest, and the manner in which it has been treated, demand some further passing remark.

The circumstances under which the Protest was issued, its substance, style and spirit, are before the reader. "What, now, are the style and spirit of the Bishop's retort? "A gross insult," " a false accusation," " a bitter and unjust assault," " vituperation," " reviling," " vilifying," " grossly insulting," " branding and calumniating,'.' "personal defamation," " endorsing a calumny," " slander," " gross libel," "insulting aggression," "false and violent accusation," "bitter and groundless accusation," "gross and scandalous libel," " public and libellous denunciation," " false and libellous Protest," " demented :" such are some of the terms and epithets poured forth by the meek and charitable and pious Bishop, so strictly Apostolical, so exceeding Christ-like, who " trusts that he has learned, when he is reviled, not 2

SOUTHERN SLAVEBT.

to revile again." One is tempted to ask whether he really supposes that scripture to imply, conversely, that when a Christian is not reviled at all, then he may revile as much as he will ? For, what reviling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, slander, insult, or lihel, with or without the epithets false, bitter, gross, groundless, scandalous, &c., can be found in the Protest?

" The subscribers deeply regret that the fact of the extensive circulation through this Diocese of a letter by ' John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont,' in defence of Southern Slavery, compels them to make this public protest. It is not their province to mix in any political canvass. But as ministers of Christ, in the Protestant Episcopal Church, it becomes them to deny any complicity or sympathy with such a defence." Is there any reviling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, slander, insult, or libel in that ? " This attempt not only to apologize for slavery in the abstract, but to advocate it as it exists in the cotton States, and in States which sell men and women in the open market as their staple product, is, in their judgment, unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ." Can Bishop Hopkins say that he did not attempt to apologize for slavery? If so, it must be because he will maintain that defending it as in itself right and good, as an unspeakable blessing to master and slave., as scriptural and Christian, and denouncing its opponents as impious, infidels, and rebels against the divine government, cannot be called an attempted apology, but a bold and defiant vindication. Bui; this would only strengthen the ground of the Protest. "Will he say that his letter, so circulated, was not an attempt to advocate slavery as it iexists in the cotton States, and in States •which sell men and women in the open market as their staple product ? But, in his letter, he says expressly : " The slavery of the negro race, as maintained in the Southern States, appears to mo fully authorized both in the Old and the New Testainent." I suppose he will not deny that some of the slave States are familiarly called Cotton States, or that in Others men and women are sold in the open market, and are bred with a view to suph a sale. So much for the facts j then follows the judgment that such an attempt is " unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ."

The facts being admitted, is this judgment to be charged as reviling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, slander, insult, libel ? It was undoubtedly the sincere and conscientious judgment of those who uttered it. It was uttered with deep regret. It is not personal. It characterizes the act and not the man ; or rather if it does by implication characterize the man, it characterizes him as contradistinguished from the act ; for if the act were unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ, still more was it unworthy of any Christian Bishop, and especially unworthy of the venerable and learned Bishop of Yermont.

There remains only the final sentence of the Protest : "As an effort to sustain, on Bible principles, the States in rebellion against the government, in the wicked attempt to establish by force of arms a tyranny under the name of a Eepublic, whose ' corner-stone* shall be the perpetual bondage of the African, it challenges their indignant reprobation."

i&ere it is to be observed that the letter of Bishop E^opkins is not expressly declared to be such an

16 SOUTHEBN SLAVERY.

" effort" as is described j but it is declared that, re* garded as such, ic challenges indignant reprobation. The signers of the Protest undoubtedly thought it might and would be so regarded. Originating as it did, and being circulated as it was, had they not a right so to think ? For myself, I cannot doubt that . the leaders of the so-called Peace-democracy are now, and were then, the most venomous and dangerous enemies of their country, and the most insidious and efficient supporters of the wicked rebellion that is raging against its existence and integrity, that are anywhere to be found. They may be too cautious or too cowardly to incur the legal criminality of aiding and abetting that rebellion ; but while they desire its success, sympathize with its perpetrators, and give it their moral countenance and support, they take upon themselves the full burden of its moral guilt. This sentiment I desire to place on record as my calm deliberate judgment.

How far all the signers of the Protest may agree in the sentiment I know not. One thing is plain — the letter in question was sought and circulated as an electioneering document. As such, and as tending to commit them and their Church to the defence of negro slavery and the support of the Southern rebellion, it fell under the notice of the clergy of Pennsylvania. They attacked no person or persons. They accused no individual of treason, rebellion, or sedition. They uttered no crimination. They pronounced a moral judgment. And, in so doing, they avoided personality as far as possible, for they simply disclaimed and denounced the document itself. That that document actually tended to strengthen the hands of the rebellion, and weaken the hands of the government in the pending struggle, wlio can deny?

V Who of all the rebels would not rejoice in its circulation and influence? So far as it went it would manifestly operate on their side. And, under the circumstances, was there not good reason to presume that it was intended so to operate. No mere act can be condemned, without assuming a motive. That motive is to be assumed of course which stands printed and patent on the face of the act, unless the contrary is shown. The burden of proof is on the other side. Bishop Hopkins has since, indeed, "ut-

.terly denied that he either wrote his pamphlet for the service of any political party, or gave his consent to the publication of the Bible View of Slavery, under an expectation at the time that it would be used by any such party." It is hard enough to believe this, now that the Bishop expressly gives his word for it. But before this disclaimer, and looking at the facts as they were, I contend that the signers of the Protest were justified in presuming the document to have been issued with an intelligent knowledge of the circumstances of the case, of the purposes for which it was to be used, and of the results which it was fitted to accomplish. The letter was asked for with the professed view of correcting " the false teachings which have had a great deal to do with bringing on the unhappy strife between two sections of our common country." Observe here that the war waged by the Southern insurgents is not recognized as a rebellion against our common country, but as an unhappy sectional strife, engendered in great measure by the anti-slavery doctrines of the Iforth. Could a man of common sense and common intelligence be supposed to doubt of the 2*

SOUTHERN SLAVERY.

political character and aims of the men who in such terms asked for that " letter ?" In his answer the Bishop offers them the pamphlet of January, 1861, to which they had referred, " in its original form j" and declares that since its issue "he has seen no cause to change his opinion." That pamphlet contained a formal defence of secession. " First," says he, " it may be asked, whether the Southern States have a right to secede for any cause ? Secondly, if they have the right, is the cause sufficient to justify its exercise ? In my humble judgment they have a right to secede." These passages were omitted in the letter as re-puhlished and circulated in Pennsylvania, whether by the prudence of the astute politicians who asked for it, or by the Bishop himself, does not cer« tainly appear. The latter would, on some accounts, seem the more probable ; for the personal response to those politicians is closed thus : " "With this brief introduction, I proceed to the very serious question which your friendly application has isubmitted for discussion. Your faithful servant in Christ, John H. Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont;" and then the whole letter, without any marks of erasure or omission, is closed anew with the signature, " I remain, with great regard, your faithful servant in Christ, John H. Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont."

From this the natural inference would seem to be, that the letter was expurgated and prepared by the Bishop himself for its re-issue j although it would seem, also, from his previous statement, that he left his political friends the option of taking it either "in its original" or in its amended form. At all

THE "PEOTEST," AND ITS DEFENCE. 19

events, whatever the re-issue contains must he regarded as dating in 1863, and not in 1861.

It will not do for the Bishop to maintain that, being published before the formation of the Southern Confederacy, it cannot be intended " to support the wicked attempt to establish by force of arms a tyranny under the name of a Eepublic, whose ' corner-stone* shall be the perpetual bondage of the African." So far as such a defence is a q^uasi confession that, if issued in 1863, the letter might fairly be considered as having such an intent ; the Bishop has admitted his own guilt. For it was issued by his own authority, and probably with his special revision, in 1863. Its present date is 1863. In 1863 it was to do its work. To 1863 it had its proper application. And though the direct defence of secession is not re-issued in 1863, the document which is issued contains the following among other statements : " Who are we that are ready to trample on the doctrine of the Bible, and tear to shreds the Constitution of our country, and even plunge the land into the untold horrors of civil war, and yet boldly pray to the God of Israel to bless our very acts of rebellion against his own sovereign authority?"

Now, when the Bishop says " we," he certainly does not mean exclusively himself and his political friends. It is manifest he means the people, the free and freedom-loving people, the loyal people, of the K'orth. And he charges them with trampling on the doctrine of the Bible, tearing in shreds the Constitution of their country, and even plunging the land into the untold horrors of civil war, and yet boldly praying to the God of Israel to bless their very acts of rebel-

SOUTHERN SLAVERY.

lion against his own sovereign authority j and this, revised and puhlished in 1863 ! Is not this open encouragement and justification to the Southern insurgents ? Is not this " an effort to sustain the States in rehellion against the government ?" The signers of the Protest thought it might naturally he so regarded. 1 suhmit to the intelligent reader that they ■were justified in so thinking, and in saying what they thought. And so thinking, they declared that it challenged their " indignant reprobation." Now here, if anywhere, must be found the " reviling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, slander, insult and libel — ^false, bitter, gross, groundless, scandalous, and demented." Let the reader quietly set against all these terms and epithets, the simple expression, uttered with deep regret, of "indignant reprobation." Is, then, John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Yermont, entirely above the reproof of his brethren? Is their reproof, their "indignant reprobation," and that too not of him, but of one of his acts, to be met with such language as he has poured forth upon it ? Are the claims of the Bishop of Yermont higher than those of the Pope of Eome ? Is the Bishop of Yermont superior to St. Peter himself? The Apostle Paul once "withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed," and severely reproved him, and that publicly,—" before them all." We do not read that St. Peter retorted with charges of "reviling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, slander, insult, and libel, false, bitter, gross, groundless, scandalous and demented." If we may suppose he had attained to the " ornament of a meek and quiet spirit" so conspicuously displayed by the Bishop of

Vermont, he certainly had not learned the dialect in •which that spirit has found its utterance.

One thing more. The signers of the Protest had , reason to denounce Bishop Hopkins's letter when sent loj him into the Diocese of Pennsylvania for circulation, not only as calculated to encourage the rebellion and to bring into contempt our common Christianity, but especially as tending to place the Episcopal Church in a false position before the world, and as being virtually the obtrusion of one Bishop into the Diocese of another. Of course I do not here use the word obtrusion in any technical, legal sense, but in its moral and practical signification. The Bishop could not be ecclesiastically tried and convicted for the act he committed. But it does not follow from that, that its commission was any the more consistent with the principles of manliness, or with the rules of courtesy and fraternal intercourse. The Bishop forthwith raises himself to his full height, and challenges ecclesiastical prosecution. But is his standard of moral duty graduated to the level of legal obligation? "What would he think of the honesty of a man who, upon being asked to pay a debt, should reply, " the term of the statute of limitioiis is past, I owe you. nothing, no legal debt, sue me- if you dare ?"

But the Bishop insists that the issuing of the " letter" was not an " oflGLcial act." Of course it was not an " official act," in the sense of being an act specifically authorized and appointed by the law of the Church as pertaining to his Episcopal office. Indeed it is rather as an officious than as an official act that it is complained of. And yet there are several things which tend to show that it assumed to

SOUTHERN SLAVERT.

be of, at least, a semi-official character. The writer •was expressly requested to give his "views as a Christian Bishop." To the views which he gave in response he affixed his signature as " Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont."

"Whether, therefore, it were an " official act" or not, it was, on the face of it, an act performed as a Bishop, and would have, and was intended to have, the weight and moral influence of a Bishop's authority. At least so the signers of the Protest, it would seem, had a right to presume. But Bishop Hopkins denies their right to make this inference; because, says he, the Archbishop of Canterbury might publish a book, on whose title-page he should be described as "Archbishop of Canterbury," and yet such a publication would not thereby be made official; and because, even in private correspondence, his Grace always retains his official designation, thus, Joh. Oantuarj and in like manner the English Bishops generally. I will not call these suggestions a subterfuge. I will leave it to the reader to characterize them appropriately. Suppose the Archbishop should affix such a signature to his " views," when they had been expressly desired, and were accompanied by the statement that they had been expressly desired, as the views of a Christian Archbishop? What then? Besides, is Bishop Hopkins accustomed to translate the style of their Anglican Iiordships, and affix his signature to his every-day private correspondence as " Bishop of the Diocese of Yermont." This certainly is not the custom of the American Bishops generally; and the signers of the Protest had no reason to suppose it was the custom of his lordship of Yermont. The Bishop suggests that he published his letter or

THE "PEOTESO!," AND ITS DEPENOE. 23

pamphlet in fulfilment of his ordination vows — " so to minister the docteine and sacraments and discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same," and " with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God's word."

Being then in fulfilment of his ordination vows, was the publication, or was it not, " an official act V* And did those vows require him to exercise the functions referred to, in his own diocese, or in the diocese of a brother Bishop ? If his brother Bishop were faithfully performing his ordination vows, such interference would seem quite unnecessary^ and if he were violating them, why not present him for trial ? Indeed it might not have been amiss, for one so scrupulous in the exact observance of duty, to have noted what is added to each of the "ordination vows" which he has cited 3 — to the first, "so that you teach the people committed to your care arid charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same ;" and to the second, " and to use both public and private monitions, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your cure, as need shall require and occasion shall be given." . ..

It is curious to observe that, further on in his book, (p. 215,) the Bishop having made a long citation " from a late work of the Eev. Chr. "Wordsworth, D.D., Canon of "Westminster," adds,^" with these excellent comments of the Eev. Canon Wordsworth, I concur most heartily: in fervent thankfulness to God, tha-t up to the year 1859, our venerated mother Church of England has proclaimed none other but the pure doctrine of the Apostles, and that her latest

SOUTHEBN SLAVERY.

utterance is in harmony with the only divine standard of wisdom, truth, and peace." Thus the Church of England is represented as speaking, as making " her latest utterance" by the mouth or pen of Canon Wordsworth. But was that work of Canon "Wordsworth an " official act ?" Could he be considered as representing the Church of England 7 — as, in any sense or to any degree committing the Church of England to his views ? If so, let the Bishop apply the same mode of reasoning to his own case ; and if not so, let him interpret the language of the friends of the Protest as he would have his own interpreted. It would seem, after all, he can sometimes take a common sense view of a case, and abandon the technicalities of his special pleading, when he sees fit.

Together with the Protest, Bishop Eopkins has printed at large in his book a list of those who signed it ; to give them, as he says, notoriety, if he cannot give them fame. If, in so doing, he thought to inflict on them any pain, or sense of ignominy, he made an egregious mistake. Their only pain proceeds from the pity which they feel for Mm; and from their sense of the shame and contumely which in their humble judgment he is doing his utmost to bring upon the cause of Christ and his Church. If they are to meet the judgment of the Christian world and of posterity as standing in any relation to the Bishop's political and pro-slavery letter, they will be proud to meet it with their indignant Protest. If their names are to be remembered hereafter, they will rejoice to have them remembered as the names of men who loved their country and sought to rescue her in her hour of extreme peril, who loved the cause of humanity and freedom, of civilization and

THE "PKOTEST," AND ITS DEFENCE.

justice, -who pitied the poor outcast, and the oppressed, who sought not to rivet hut to hreak the chains of the slave, and thus to cherish the spirit, and imitate the character of Him who came to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound, to preach the acceptable year — the Jubilee — of the Lord. The Bishop compliments " the Christian and manly course of those who refused to set their names to that most unwarrantable document." That the Bishop may have the full benefit of those names, it may not be improper to give here a list of the Clergy of Pennsylvania, having seats in the Convention, as they appear in the Diocesan Journal of 1863, omitting the 164 who signed the Protest, and those who are believed to have removed from the Diocese, or to have been absent at the time of its issue. That list is as follows : —